# Did Paul hijack Christianity?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [February 25, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342 "2010-02-25T01:48:27Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 12
### Author:  [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)
#### Post date: [March 13, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/221 "2010-03-13T21:29:11Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> > [@ambushed](#):
> >
> > It wasn’t sarcasm, it was astonishment! Paul was a genius who had gone far out of his way to learn everything he could out of longing for wisdom and knowledge of cosmopolitan learning and teachers and all sorts of facts, history, stories, theologies, teachings, allegories, fables, legends and myths of all sorts. No one acquires that kind of vast knowledge without being driven by curiosity. To assert just to defend your silly historicist thesis – as is very obviously the case – that “Paul just wasn’t into all that Jesus stuff” is simply mind-boggling! It’s one of the most blatant cases of special pleading I’ve ever seen.
> >
> > There really isn’t anything else in that post of yours to respond. Skepticism of my skepticism doesn’t amount to an actual argument.
>
> He was more driven by what he saw as his divinely inspired mission and the knowledge he valued most was the divine revelation you mentioned. It’s the kind of thing the mythicists would eagerly ridicule in a modern day Christian.
>
> Referring to my “historicist thesis” appears to be an intentional misrepresentation of what I’ve actually said. If something silly is going on it’s your use of this transparent and ineffective technique. Also “Paul just wasn’t into all that Jesus stuff” is an inaccurate oversimplification of my point. I’m speaking of Paul’s priorities that are clearly represented in his writing. Of course Paul was into Jesus as the Christ and what he saw as his holy mission directed by revelation through the Holy Spirit. Spreading the gospel.
> Your argument makes the assumption that of course he would have wanted to visit the historical spots that Jesus walked etc. The problem is it’s all an assumption without one passage to support it. I’m saying that in reading Paul and having some experience and understanding about people thinking they are guided and driven by the spirit, it becomes easy to dismiss such an assumption that is not backed by any evidence. His priority and main driving force was preaching the gospel and following the directive’s of what he saw as divine guidance. That being the case it’s very possible that the geographic locations that Jesus walked, the tomb, whatever, just didn’t matter in light of his mission.
>
> So, unless you have any passage to support your assumption the argument built upon it crumbles.
> That same principle applies to other assumptions your argument is built upon.
>
> Your claims are since logic dictates that X {your assumption} is true then Y and Z must follow. The problem is logic does not dictate that X is true so you must support X with some evidence rather than just assertion. If you have some please present it. If not stop wasting time and bandwidth with high school debate techniques.
Hilariously sophomoric! It doesn’t matter a dead fly’s leg what he was _more_ interested in, **you’re saying he wasn’t interested in God’s life on earth at all!** Such laughable special pleading!
You haven’t even presented a single credible comment, let alone an argument! You’re just mindlessly preaching pretend historical pseudo-agnosticism with the obvious quasi-hidden agenda of defending historicity without actually defending historicity in any legitimate way. I see nothing but empty verbiage calories; all bluff, no credible argument.
It’s sad what you’ve done to this debate, which could have been quite interesting. Maybe someone else will participate in a credible manner, but there’s no point on continuing this with you that I can see.
-
-
---
### Author:  [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)
#### Post date: [March 13, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/222 "2010-03-13T21:32:17Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> I don’t see how.
Read Doherty’s [_Jesus: Neither God Nor Man_](http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/whatsnew.html) and you’ll understand why that can’t be considered a reference to a historical Jesus.
---
### Author:  [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)
#### Post date: [March 13, 2010, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/223 "2010-03-13T21:33:25Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Sigh , at least here’s a concrete example of your assumptions being wrong. I am not a Christian.
I apologize for my misunderstanding and retract that bit. The rest of my criticisms stand.
---
### Author:  [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)
#### Post date: [March 14, 2010, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/224 "2010-03-14T01:46:24Z")
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> Gershom Scholem’s 1973 examination of the life of Sabbatai Sevi (1626-1675), another “Messiah”, shows that myths of miracles and sayings and deeds **even while he was still alive!** There were “100% certain! I saw it with my own eyes!” myths of standing in fires without his hair or clothing being burned and angelic pronouncements from the sky **all while he was still alive!**
But this doesn’t seem surprising. There are plenty of contemporaneously recorded myths throughout history. I don’t believe Parson Weems’ account of a young George Washington chopping down a cherry tree, but that doesn’t make me doubt Washington’s existence. I don’t believe that Mary, Mother of Jesus made her divinity apparent via [a slice of French Toast](http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainnameatlonglast.com/expensive64.html), but I don’t doubt that it was actually sold on eBay some years ago. I have doubts about Sylvia Browne’s psychic powers, though I assure you she exists.
Just for clarification though: you stated, “My study leads me to the preponderance of evidence that the origin of the mythical Jesus probably lies in the Righteous Teacher of the Qumran community.”
I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying that there was Rabbi/faith healer wandering around Nazarath who visited the big city during passover, got in over his head, and was executed? But that he never actually walked on water, etc.? If that’s the case, then we have no disagreement. (Ok, I trust that you’re not saying that, but I honesty am not sure what you mean by Righteous Teacher.)
---
### Author:  [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)
#### Post date: [March 14, 2010, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/225 "2010-03-14T02:05:52Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#):
>
> Paul says that Jesus died, then “appeared” to Cephas (Peter), then James and John, then “the twelve” (which shows a lack of awareness of the Judas story), then “the five hundred” (an enigmatic reference mentioned only by Paul, and not mentioned at all by the Gospels) then to Paul himself. Paul draws no distinction between the nature of the appearance to the original apostles or to himself, and never says that Jesus was physically resurrected or appeared in a physical body (in fact, paul actually denies that physical resurrections are possible).
Cite that Paul denies physical resurrections are possible? That sounds like an important clue. TIA. (I see that this has been a matter of debate on the internet, unsurprisingly).
I’m running low on insight, but…
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#):
>
> But after the first Jewish-Roman War, the Jersualem Jesus movement was gone, and Paul’s movement became the de facto “orthodox” version of Christianity. This was pretty much a Gentile movement, and while it may have contained some Hellenistic Jews, it was unlikely to have encountered many, if any, surviving Palestinian Jews who’d been alive in Judea 40-70 years prior, and not especially likely they’d ever have heard of Jesus even if the had been living at the same time and place as he did.
>
> These early churches in Asia Minor were very small and obscure. It’s not like they were on the internet or anything, and the Gospels were not widely distributed. Copies were scarce, and the people (most of whom were not literate anyway) heard them read aloud at meetings of these small congregations in private homes. These were not events which were typically being sought out or attended by hostile Jews, and the odds that some creaky old survivor from the time and place contemporaneous with Jesus was going to wander into one of these little meetings and say “that never happened” (or even KNOW anything about Jesus) was vanishingly small. Even if it had happened, that person would have simply been ignored, since he wouldn’t have been able to prove anything, and facts have never gotten in the way of religion in any case.
Ok, this is news to me: I had understood that 70CE Christianity was primarily Gentile _but with nontrivial Jewish representation_. I had understood that Mark was in part a story for those who had survived the trauma of the fall of the Temple. That suggests that part of his intended audience were Jews. From there, I had assumed that some of them had some familiarity with the Jesus cult ahead of time, but that may be a leap.
The other part is that Mark makes Peter out to be a moron. Doesn’t that suggest some sort of intra-religious skirmishing? Ok _not necessarily_, but I’m wondering whether the preponderance of evidence favors Dio’s presentation. Not that I’ve done any reading on this.
I did however watch the Frontline special:
> [@L. Michael White](#):
>
> One of the best of these comes in Mark 13, what is sometimes called the Little Apocalypse, because in it, Jesus has just come out of the Temple and his disciples turn and point to the magnificent structure and say, “isn’t it all beautiful? What do you think, Jesus?” Jesus proceeds then to tell them about the destruction of the Temple. So, here is a story of Jesus, some 40 years before the Temple is destroyed, already predicting the destruction. But, as this story unfolds, **it becomes clear that the audience for whom it is written has seen the destruction of the Temple, that whatever Jesus’ predictions are supposed to suggest, that they themselves know it first hand.**
Emphasis added. Cite: [The Story Of The Storytellers - The Gospel Of Mark | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/mark.html)
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [March 14, 2010, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/226 "2010-03-14T04:55:43Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#):
>
> Cite that Paul denies physical resurrections are possible? That sounds like an important clue. TIA. (I see that this has been a matter of debate on the internet, unsurprisingly).
1 Corinthians 15: 35-49. here’s the passage:
35But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[f] bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
> [@](#):
>
> I’m running low on insight, but… Ok, this is news to me: I had understood that 70CE Christianity was primarily Gentile _but with nontrivial Jewish representation_. I had understood that Mark was in part a story for those who had survived the trauma of the fall of the Temple. That suggests that part of his intended audience were Jews. From there, I had assumed that some of them had some familiarity with the Jesus cult ahead of time, but that may be a leap.
Not a very defensible position from the text, since Mark not only shows a great deal of ignorance of Jewish law and theology, but also blames the Jews for the crucifixion.
> [@](#):
>
> The other part is that Mark makes Peter out to be a moron. Doesn’t that suggest some sort of intra-religious skirmishing?
Probably, yes. Most likely it reflects a conflict between the Pauline and Petrine movements near the end of the first century. Mark makes Peter a dunce who doesn’t understand Jesus, who denies him and runs away, and who is denied a witness of the resurrection. The message is that Peter is not to be trusted as an authority, and that the Petrine community is not the true heir to the ministry of Jesus.
> [@](#):
>
> I did however watch the Frontline special: Emphasis added. Cite: [The Story Of The Storytellers - The Gospel Of Mark | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/mark.html)
Yes, this passage is the main reason that Mark is dated as post 70 CE.
---
### Author:  [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2010, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/227 "2010-03-15T01:24:26Z")
I had interpreted Corinthians 15 to be addressed narrowly on human resurrections, as opposed to Godly ones. But I admit other interpretations (and I may be demonstrably wrong.)
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#):
>
> Probably, yes. Most likely it reflects a conflict between the Pauline and Petrine movements near the end of the first century. Mark makes Peter a dunce who doesn’t understand Jesus, who denies him and runs away, and who is denied a witness of the resurrection. The message is that Peter is not to be trusted as an authority, and that the Petrine community is not the true heir to the ministry of Jesus.
But… isn’t the Petrine community mostly Jewish? Or at least doesn’t it have a markedly Jewish contingent?
Religious vilification is popularly thought to be a result of scapegoating in the face of natural disasters such as hurricanes or famine. But I understand that it’s more often associated with frictions between related religious sects. So the anti-Jewish stuff could be taken as evidence for Pauline attacks on the Petrine community. And if _that’s_ the case, then it would be surprising that there is no attempt in the gospels to explain away why some consider Jesus to be purely a man of the spirit, as opposed to a faith healer wandering around Nazarath in 20CE, if in fact the mythicist hypothesis holds.
## But now we’re weighing evidence as opposed to ruling out interpretations. It’s been a interesting conversation (thanks to all!) but as I said, my insight is running low.
Re: the OP. I actually like Paul, which is something different than agreeing with him on everything. He typically landed on side of cutting the well-meaning some slack: even his attacks on homosexuality were more along the lines of an _ad hominem_ argument as applied to a separate issue than an obsession or jihad.
At any rate, I can read Paul’s letters and believe that I have a fighting chance of understanding his point of view. I can’t say the same of Jesus of Nazarath, whose direct followers left behind no contemporaneous writings: for Him, I find it difficult to pierce the veil.
---
### Author:  [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2010, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/228 "2010-03-15T03:44:21Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#):
>
> But this doesn’t seem surprising. There are plenty of contemporaneously recorded myths throughout history. I don’t believe Parson Weems’ account of a young George Washington chopping down a cherry tree, but that doesn’t make me doubt Washington’s existence. I don’t believe that Mary, Mother of Jesus made her divinity apparent via [a slice of French Toast](http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainnameatlonglast.com/expensive64.html), but I don’t doubt that it was actually sold on eBay some years ago. I have doubts about Sylvia Browne’s psychic powers, though I assure you she exists.
What’s relevant is not the myth-making itself, but the fact that no time need elapse at all before myths about even a _real_ person start being circulated. So the fact that myths about a mythical figure can come so soon should not surprise anyone. That was my point with identifying those figures.
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#):
>
> Just for clarification though: you stated, “My study leads me to the preponderance of evidence that the origin of the mythical Jesus probably lies in the Righteous Teacher of the Qumran community.”
>
> I’m not sure what you mean. Are you saying that there was Rabbi/faith healer wandering around Nazarath who visited the big city during passover, got in over his head, and was executed? But that he never actually walked on water, etc.? If that’s the case, then we have no disagreement. (Ok, I trust that you’re not saying that, but I honesty am not sure what you mean by Righteous Teacher.)
Okay, I’ll try to explain in more depth. Part of the problem is that I studied all this at great length and in great detail long enough ago to now be hazy regarding of some of the details. The title I should have been using is not “Righteous Teacher” but [“Teacher of Righteousness”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teacher_of_Righteousness). That’s a significant difference and I apologize for my error – I shouldn’t have tried working from memory. The same problem caused a poor response to **Latro** earlier.
One thing I must emphasize immediately: When I speak of this Teacher of Righteousness and Jesus, I am **not** in any way following Alvar Ellegård’s highly questionable hypothesis in which he argues the two are one in the same. I don’t accept that view at all.
What I believe is that the Teacher of Righteousness and possibly other high priests of that particular Qumranian sect (which from my past research I tended to doubt were actually Essenes, but I don’t recall why it might have mattered) was one – _just_ one, but probably the earliest – historical source of some of the sayings and teachings that began to be accreted around a more mythical “Teacher of Righteousness”-like figure who at some point later was to become the mythical Jesus, and that this process was underway perhaps 200 years before Paul’s first epistle around 57 CE (according to that article’s source).
That particular sect at Qumran was written of in some Dead Sea Scrolls, the origin of that sect and the nature of the Teacher of Righteousness being described (as per the Wikipedia piece) as follows:
> [@](#):
>
> The Teacher claimed to have the proper understanding of the Torah, being the one through whom God would reveal to the community “the hidden things in which Israel had gone astray”… He also claimed to be an inspired interpreter of the prophets, as the one “to whom God made known all the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets”.
Now, one thing we see all over the place in the Gospels is the direct recasting of famous parts of the Hebrew Scripture – often the words and deeds of the prophets – into more recent settings associated with Jesus. The similarities are far too close and compelling to be actual historical reportage (an important element in the mythicist position), and we also see in the Gospels the mythical Jesus revealing what can well be described as "things in which Israel had gone astray”. It is those and other similarities between the mythical Jesus and the Teacher of Righteousness that leads to my view.
Summary: The Teacher of Righteousness was likely the earliest historical source for the beginnings of the mythical accretions surrounding the mythical Jesus, and that started at least a century before the date that became associated with the birth of Jesus. This left all kinds of time for still more accretions and myth-making (not a deliberate, conscious activity but an ordinary product of human psychology such as we saw in the case of Sabbatai Sevi and others).
-
-
---
### Author:  [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2010, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/229 "2010-03-15T06:50:36Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> > [@ambushed](#):
> >
> > Also, Paul never indicated or wrote of any historical Jesus or historical resurrection on earth. The death and resurrection Paul was speaking of took place in a spiritual realm, though it takes an exceedingly careful reading and the taking off of Gospel-colored glasses first. Every word Paul writes of Jesus Christ or The Lord is of the spiritual Christ of his own personal revelatory visions. The _Risen_ Christ for him refers to his belief that the spiritual Christ rose from the middle sphere of then-common parlance to the topmost heaven (but I again acknowledge that takes some close reading and knowledge of that multi-realm supernatural mythology).
>
> If this is true you have yet to support it. Serious question ;Where in Paul’s writing can we find a fairly clear reference to this multi realm mythology?
>
> Sincerely, I’m willing to examine and consider this but I’d need something more than what you’ve offered here. It seems to me, so far, that it’s just as likely that Paul was referencing a living person who’s resurrection was a spiritual one rather than a physical one.
Those are perfectly fair questions, and again, I apologize for misconstruing your words.
However, this is a rather abstract, dense, and difficult set of concepts and they aren’t really suitable for a message board due to the length of the explanation I’d have to provide to make it persuasive. These ideas cannot be explained properly here without it looking like dubious nonsense because of the drastic changes over the course of two millennia in cosmogonies/cosmologies and popular understanding of the nature of the universe and reality.
But if you’ll agree to not mock what I say for it’s oddity, I’ll offer a brief explication of what Paul and Paul’s intellectual peers would have believed about the structure of earth and heaven. Keep in mind this is not my own work, of course, but I have been completely persuaded of this by Earl Doherty’s work, particularly his recently expanded and revised magnum opus, _Jesus: Neither God nor Man_.
One **key** point here involves the obvious lack of at least ordinary historical biographical references to Jesus in Paul’s writings such as where he was born, where he lived, who his relatives were and his basic life story. Had Paul’s Jesus been just another Gnostic mystery god, who were alleged to have been born, lived, and died (later to be resurrected) on earth in the distant past (the “sacred past”), there would be all sorts of biographical information relating to Jesus in Paul’s work (though we see precisely that years later with the Gospels). Not as genuine historical references, of course, but as mythical elements which serve to foreshadow and tentatively reveal some of the mysteries’ hidden meanings of those god stories. The fact that nothing of that sort exist in Paul (I’m not yet referring to the death and resurrection elements in Paul’s writings), as well as other logical problems, means that G. A. Wells’ and Freke & Gandy’s and several others’ mythical views of Jesus, in which such a lack of mythical pseudo-biographical information is inexplicable, just aren’t very plausible in the end.
Instead, one must remember what an abstract and elevated thinker Paul was and how well educated he was in philosophy and theologies and the like. With that in mind, the explanation for that lack of routine biographical data comes clear: Paul was a Platonist (though that is far from the only indication of Paul’s rather evident Platonism, as re-viewed by Paul’s extremely important intellectual and philosophical source, Philo of Alexandria). In Platonic realism/idealism (both terms paradoxically apply), entities such as people and objects and their attributes and motivations and actions and so forth exist as perfect Universal Forms (or patterns) in a kind of Heavenly Sphere (or heavenly layer of abstraction), while crude copies of them that exist on earth are inevitably flawed “Particulars” or instantiations. Therefore, a perfect “man” such as Jesus could only exist as a heavenly abstraction in a heavenly realm, where people and events transpire not in history but in a kind of archetypal/allegorical version of pseudo-narrative history.
Now I’ll turn to quoting Doherty directly:
> [@Earl Doherty](#):
>
> We must examine, then, the structure of the spiritual world to try to arrive at the particulars of Christ’s redemptive activities. Platonic cosmology by the turn of the era envisioned more than a simple dualistic division between spiritual and material parts of the universe. Heaven was a layered realm, a series of ascending spheres delineated and controlled by the planetary bodies which could be regarded as spiritual beings themselves, above which stood the purest sphere of God’s own abode. It must be kept in mind that none of this was determined by what we would think of as ‘science’ (which is why it was so wrong), but was arrived at through purely intellectual contemplation by various philosophers and religious thinkers. As such, while a given ‘school’ might establish its own general consensus about the details, there was no central authoritative body to lay out an accepted picture in all its aspects, much less impose dogma on the philosophical or religious community. Thus, while the layered Universe idea emerges from many sources, it is not always clear as to what details they agree upon, although it is often clear that there are many things they do not agree upon. A common philosophical viewpoint, however, was that there was a major division in the cosmos between “corruptibility” and “incorruptibility.” When philosophy or religion posits a heavenly world, there is always a compulsion to attribute to it an absence of the flaws which beset the material world: death, suffering, evil, even the changeability of matter. Gods are usually accorded perfection, which means that they must live in a perfect realm…
>
> But even the spiritual dimension has its denizens of evil and less-than-perfect elements: subordinate spirits, lesser and fallen angels, even inhospitable landscapes; in a layered universe, gradations can be accommodated. Still, the boundary between incorruptibility and corruptibility was generally placed at the lowest division between the spheres, namely the orbit of the moon. The term “firmament” is sometimes applied to that point of delineation, but it can also refer to the area immediately below the moon which is not part of earth itself (Here we can ignore one variety of terminology: the occasional use of “firmament” to designate the border between God’s highest Heaven and all the spheres below it.)
So Paul’s writings, particularly in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul’s spiritual Jesus/Christ’s life and death takes place in the heavenly, essentially Platonic (as interpreted by the Hellenistic Jew Philo of Alexandria) realm of “the firmament” (as Doherty speaks of it above), which is the lowest level of Paul’s concept of heaven. Christ’s “resurrection” is therefore from the lowest level of heaven to the highest, God’s realm itself, where everything is totally incorruptible.
For more details, you really need to turn to Doherty’s book.
-
-
---
### Author:  [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2010, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/230 "2010-03-15T12:03:55Z")
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> Those are perfectly fair questions, and again, I apologize for misconstruing your words.
>
> However, this is a rather abstract, dense, and difficult set of concepts and they aren’t really suitable for a message board due to the length of the explanation I’d have to provide to make it persuasive. These ideas cannot be explained properly here without it looking like dubious nonsense because of the drastic changes over the course of two millennia in cosmogonies/cosmologies and popular understanding of the nature of the universe and reality.
>
> But if you’ll agree to not mock what I say for it’s oddity, I’ll offer a brief explication of what Paul and Paul’s intellectual peers would have believed about the structure of earth and heaven. Keep in mind this is not my own work, of course, but I have been completely persuaded of this by Earl Doherty’s work, particularly his recently expanded and revised magnum opus, _Jesus: Neither God nor Man_.
>
> One **key** point here involves the obvious lack of at least ordinary historical biographical references to Jesus in Paul’s writings such as where he was born, where he lived, who his relatives were and his basic life story. Had Paul’s Jesus been just another Gnostic mystery god, who were alleged to have been born, lived, and died (later to be resurrected) on earth in the distant past (the “sacred past”), there would be all sorts of biographical information relating to Jesus in Paul’s work (though we see precisely that years later with the Gospels). Not as genuine historical references, of course, but as mythical elements which serve to foreshadow and tentatively reveal some of the mysteries’ hidden meanings of those god stories. The fact that nothing of that sort exist in Paul (I’m not yet referring to the death and resurrection elements in Paul’s writings), as well as other logical problems, means that G. A. Wells’ and Freke & Gandy’s and several others’ mythical views of Jesus, in which such a lack of mythical pseudo-biographical information is inexplicable, just aren’t very plausible in the end.
>
> Instead, one must remember what an abstract and elevated thinker Paul was and how well educated he was in philosophy and theologies and the like. With that in mind, the explanation for that lack of routine biographical data comes clear: Paul was a Platonist (though that is far from the only indication of Paul’s rather evident Platonism, as re-viewed by Paul’s extremely important intellectual and philosophical source, Philo of Alexandria). In Platonic realism/idealism (both terms paradoxically apply), entities such as people and objects and their attributes and motivations and actions and so forth exist as perfect Universal Forms (or patterns) in a kind of Heavenly Sphere (or heavenly layer of abstraction), while crude copies of them that exist on earth are inevitably flawed “Particulars” or instantiations. Therefore, a perfect “man” such as Jesus could only exist as a heavenly abstraction in a heavenly realm, where people and events transpire not in history but in a kind of archetypal/allegorical version of pseudo-narrative history.
>
> Now I’ll turn to quoting Doherty directly:
>
> So Paul’s writings, particularly in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul’s spiritual Jesus/Christ’s life and death takes place in the heavenly, essentially Platonic (as interpreted by the Hellenistic Jew Philo of Alexandria) realm of “the firmament” (as Doherty speaks of it above), which is the lowest level of Paul’s concept of heaven. Christ’s “resurrection” is therefore from the lowest level of heaven to the highest, God’s realm itself, where everything is totally incorruptible.
>
> For more details, you really need to turn to Doherty’s book.
>
> -
> -
How prevalent would you say Greek philosophy was in the modern world Paul traveled in?
---
### Author:  [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2010, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/231 "2010-03-15T12:31:00Z")
ETA:
I shouldn’t have posted to ambushed since I have little time to engage in commentary.
I will say this, however: I have lurked in as many of these threads as I have posted, and I am struck by some commonalities:
1. The source—the bible----is rarely quoted in favor of commentary on the bible.
2. I recently read a paper written by a doctor (forget his name) and he talked about belief systems and the question of authority. I (and the rest of us) are biased to accept as an ‘authority’ people/sources that will confirm my predispositions.
As a result…:
3. I _routinely_ see these cites from authors that are highly speculative, sometimes _egregiously_ so. Yet if their worldview fits with mine I blissfully ignore the speculative nature of their thoughts like its bible truth. (pun intended)
Now in fairness I haven’t read every post in this thread, But I have read a bit on this topic and in my reading it seems clear to me that Paul lived in a time where Platonic philosophy was extremely pervasive, yet he never addresses it directly once. Not once. Yet to the extent he does address the common popular philosophy of the day he exhibits something close to contempt.
---
### Author:  [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2010, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/232 "2010-03-15T12:51:42Z")
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> I haven’t seen this addressed yet either (though I haven’t reached the end of the queue yet):
>
> Galatians 1:11-12:
>
> For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me **is not according to man.**
>
> For I **neither received it from man, nor was I taught it** , but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
>
> -
> -
Actually I did address this subject in post 190 although I didn’t refer to this specific passage.
We see lots of passages differentiating the wisdom of man from God’s wisdom.
Jesus spoke of this in Mat 15 and then promised the apostles the comforter aka the Holy Spirit, will come. The teaching was and is that real spiritual knowledge and insight comes only from communion with the Holy Spirit. That’s what Paul stresses in his writings.
I’m saying that there’s an explanation that fits a historical Jesus and is just as plausible as that of the mythicists. Namely; the thrust of Paul’s teaching was to accept the gift of the Holy Spirit and through that spirit gain real spiritual knowledge and personal transformation. The Spirit was his primary focus and he saw it as the still living real and active representation of God and Christ. That being the case, there’s no need to idealize or focus on the physical life of Christ.
If you believe you have access to all spiritual knowledge through direct revelation from the HS there’s hardly a need to seek guidance from other mortal men who got theirs from the same spirit is there?
---
### Author:  [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2010, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/233 "2010-03-15T13:00:24Z")
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> Those are perfectly fair questions, and again, I apologize for misconstruing your words.
accepted
> [@](#):
>
> But if you’ll agree to not mock what I say for it’s oddity, I’ll offer a brief explication of what Paul and Paul’s intellectual peers would have believed about the structure of earth and heaven.
That’s quite a request considering how eagerly you mocked almost every post I made. Still, I come to the boards to exchange ideas and learn new things so I’ll refrain from giving you what you gave me. It didn’t serve any useful purpose for you or add anything valuable to your argument. It wouldn’t for mine either.
I took some time yesterday morning to read some of your links “The Sound of Silence” in particular. It was interesting and I appreciate your efforts to explain. I’ll comment tomorrow when I have more free time.
---
### Author:  [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/234 "2010-03-15T22:16:02Z")
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> Hilariously sophomoric!
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> Such laughable special pleading!
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> Funny stuff!
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> The obvious evasions, double-talk, empty rhetoric, fallacious argument, infantile nyah nyahs, and general hilarity of this mind-bogglingly silly post
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> You’re just mindlessly preaching pretend historical pseudo-agnosticism with the obvious quasi-hidden agenda
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> You haven’t even presented a single credible comment
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> which only fools think
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> This, gentle readers, is the classic “Nyah, nyah” argument. Notice the total lack of substance, just vacuous blather.
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> probably the stupidest response I’ve ever encountered on any issue ever.
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> Blah, blah. I see you’re going in for blatant Christian apologetics rather than rational argument.
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> Get over it already!
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> Pray tell, genius,
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> This should be quite amusing.
> [@ambushed](#):
>
> Please try to debate this like a grownup.
**ambushed** , thank you for showing what the real arguments for the mythicist position are.
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2010, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/235 "2010-03-15T22:21:30Z")
> [@raindog](#):
>
> How prevalent would you say Greek philosophy was in the modern world Paul traveled in?
Since Paul traveled in the Hellenistic world, Greek philosophy was extremely prevalent in his geographical travles, but it may not have been that well known to the demographics of a lot of his audience, who were of the underclasses, and not well educated.
The author of John was definitely familiar with Philo.
---
### Author:  [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2010, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/236 "2010-03-15T22:33:43Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> **ambushed** , thank you for showing what the real arguments for the mythicist position are.
**ambushed** showed that he had a temper (though he has since calmed down some).
However, besides that he has made arguments. Ignoring those to pretend that his temper is his argument is not a refutation of his arguments - it’s just an abdication from debate on your part.
---
### Author:  [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)
#### Post date: [March 16, 2010, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/237 "2010-03-16T02:42:05Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> **ambushed** , thank you for showing what the real arguments for the mythicist position are.
What is it you think you’re accomplishing by answering snide ridicule with snide ridicule of your own without dealing with a single argument? Is it witnessing?
I’m no fan of the unnecessary mocking contained in the posts you quoted or the unearned superiority they tend to imply, but pointing it out without offering any content of your own isn’t helping.
---
### Author:  [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)
#### Post date: [March 17, 2010, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/238 "2010-03-17T01:24:51Z")
> [@raindog](#):
>
> How prevalent would you say Greek philosophy was in the modern world Paul traveled in?
Paul was a Hellenistic Jew, as was his most important philosophical source, [Philo of Alexandria](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo) (see part 3 in particular of that article). See [Hellenistic Judaism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_Judaism) and [Judaism Meets Hellenism and the Logos](http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/hum_judaism.htm) for another extraordinarily important concept to Paul, the Platonic Logos.
The diaspora intellectual world Paul moved in was highly cosmopolitan, and while Hellenistic Judaism was the predominant philo-theological element in Paul’s worldview, it was far from the only one.
But to answer your question directly: Extremely prevalent.
-
-
---
### Author:  [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)
#### Post date: [March 17, 2010, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/239 "2010-03-17T01:27:51Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#):
>
> **ambushed** , thank you for showing what the real arguments for the mythicist position are.
Oh, grow up. You can’t make even a single rational comment, let alone an argument, for your extremely shallow position and so you huff and puff and blame all your troubles on me.
Make a credible rational argument or admit you can’t.
-
-
---
### Author:  [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)
#### Post date: [March 17, 2010, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342/240 "2010-03-17T02:05:34Z")
> [@raindog](#):
>
> ETA:
> I shouldn’t have posted to ambushed since I have little time to engage in commentary.
>
> I will say this, however: I have lurked in as many of these threads as I have posted, and I am struck by some commonalities:
>
> 1. The source—the bible----is rarely quoted in favor of commentary on the bible.
That’s because even the most religious genuine biblical scholar (which leaves out all fundamentalists and literalists) acknowledge that the Bible is very far from historical reportage, with a great many fictional and mythical elements even among those who believe in both the historical existence of Jesus and that he was the Son of God. Also, those who cannot read the original text in the original language/historical context can’t rely on the popular translations being accurate.
So one _has_ to often turn to commentaries (I personally favor _“The Interpreter’s Bible”_ but my set is now lost somewhere) to try to come closer to what was actually being said in the Bible.
> [@raindog](#):
>
> 1. I recently read a paper written by a doctor (forget his name) and he talked about belief systems and the question of authority. I (and the rest of us) are biased to accept as an ‘authority’ people/sources that will confirm my predispositions.
> As a result…:
I know what you are referring to. They are the various extremely common psychological biases in our thinking that we must always be on guard for. One of the most common is called “confirmation bias”, where we are far more likely to accept views which match our own and far more reluctant to accept views which don’t.
To guard against these factors, one must become skilled in the arts of [critical thinking](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking), a cautious mode of thinking and analysis where one challenges oneself vigorously to examine one’s views on a particular topic to see if one has fallen into one or more of those psychological traps.
I put my nose to the grindstone to learn and practice critical thinking about 35 years ago when I became fascinated with skepticism and CSICOP (who taught it), and I’ve long had the habit. The book on the topic I like the best is [_How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life_](http://www.amazon.com/How-Know-What-Isnt-Fallibility/dp/0029117062/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268789930&sr=8-1-catcorr). I heartily recommend it to all.
Now, one common misconception is that the rejection of the historical Jesus is just one or another form of atheism. This is very far from the truth, at least in my case. Atheism doesn’t require or benefit from the lack of a historical Jesus, since all that is necessary to fit with that worldview is that Jesus was not a God or other supernatural being. So this is independent from atheism. It is strictly about whether or not a given figure is historical or not, and we know that there are no small number of figures who were entirely mythical.
The argument for this historical Jesus simply fails. No credible historical evidence for Jesus exists.
Now, if we left it at that, the mythicist argument wins anyway since it fallacious in the extreme to believe in the existence of something or someone – like Santa Claus and monsters on Venus – without legitimate evidence.
But in the case of Jesus, we can go one step further: If someone as notable as Jesus had lived (not necessarily notable for his miracles, but certainly notable as a rebel who overturned the most famous Temple in the world and was ordered killed by Herod and all those other ostensibly historical events associated with him), there **must** be credible legitimate historical evidence of his existence. Since there is no evidence where evidence **must** exist, the only available logical alternative is to conclude he did not exist as a historical person. Q.E.D.
> [@raindog](#):
>
> 1. I _routinely_ see these cites from authors that are highly speculative, sometimes _egregiously_ so. Yet if their worldview fits with mine I blissfully ignore the speculative nature of their thoughts like its bible truth. (pun intended)
>
> Now in fairness I haven’t read every post in this thread, But I have read a bit on this topic and in my reading it seems clear to me that Paul lived in a time where Platonic philosophy was extremely pervasive, yet he never addresses it directly once. Not once. Yet to the extent he does address the common popular philosophy of the day he exhibits something close to contempt.
What reasoning do you employ to assert so emphatically that Paul NEVER addresses his foundational worldview of Hellenistic Judaism? Never? Did you expect to see the words: “I am a Platonist” somewhere?
I hold to several schools of philosophical thought. Can you see them all reflected in my words?
I think not.
-
-
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342.md?page=11)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-paul-hijack-christianity/530342.md?page=13)